|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
12 Sep 2016, 11:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
karant
Dear karant,
I'm happy to respond.
The first thing I will say is that student mistakenly believe that the SC GMAT is primarily a test of grammar. In fact, grammar is only one of three equally important strands---the other two are [urlhttps://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/logical-predication-on-the-gmat-sentence-correction/]logic[/url] and rhetoric. What you are asking here is not a matter of grammar: it's a matter of logic. The simple rule is that GMAT considers the past perfect either questionable or outright wrong when its use is entirely redundant. The GMAT is 100% against redundancy. Therefore, we have to use logic to figure out what's redundant and what's not.
Look at this sentence, the SC question in this thread. This is (A), the OA:
The industrial pollutants known as PCB's were first manufactured in 1929 and were used as coolants for electrical equipment in Europe and North America until the 1970's, when studies showed that the compounds had entered the food chain and were harmful to some animals.
This version has the past perfect, and the use of the past perfect makes very clear that in the 1970s, when the studied were done, the pollution problem had taken place already. The environment was already contaminated by the time when scientists conducted these studies.
Now, change that to the simple past:
The industrial pollutants known as PCB's were first manufactured in 1929 and were used as coolants for electrical equipment in Europe and North America until the 1970's, when studies showed that the compounds entered the food chain and were harmful to some animals.
This changes the meaning. This tells us that no PCB's entered the food chain before the 1970's, but somehow, right when the studied were done, that's when the pollutants suddenly permeated the entire food chain. First of all, that's completely nonsense, but also that's a completely different meaning.
Therefore, the past perfect is required in that question, because removing the past perfect changes the meaning. If you can take something out and the meaning changes, then what you have taken out is not redundant. By definition, something is redundant only when it can be removed without altering the meaning in the least. Once again, the GMAT is 100% against redundancy.
Now, look at that OG SC problem, #89 in the OG 2017. Incidentally, my friend, it is common courtesy to cite the exact number of any question you quote from the OG.
Here's (A), with the past perfect.
His studies of ice-polished rocks in his Alpine home land, far outside the range of present-day glaciers, led Louis Agassiz in 1837 to propose the concept of an age in which great ice sheets had existed in now currently temperate areas.
Let's just keep this same version, but change the past perfect to the simple past:
His studies of ice-polished rocks in his Alpine home land, far outside the range of present-day glaciers, led Louis Agassiz in 1837 to propose the concept of an age in which great ice sheets existed in now currently temperate areas.
Absolutely no change in meaning. Louis Agassiz was doing this work in 1837, and both versions make very clear that the "age" of the "great ice sheets" was well before 1837--in fact, it was back in the most recent Ice Age. Whether we have the past perfect or the simple past, the sentence has exactly the same meaning: by definition, that makes the use of the past perfect tense redundant in this context.
You see, my friend, there is no simple rule about when the past perfect is right or wrong. You have to think about the logic of the situation and ask yourself whether the meaning changes if you change the past perfect to the simple past. Any feature of a sentence that can be removed without changing the meaning is, by definition, redundant.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
karant
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Last visit: 28 Jan 2020
Posts: 74
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 75
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
Schools: NTU '18 (D) ISB '18 (D) NUS '19 XLRI GM"18 (M)
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 3: 680 Q48 V35
GPA: 2.8
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Products:
12 Sep 2016, 12:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
mikemcgarry
Thanks Mike for the detailed response !
The industrial pollutants known as PCB's were first manufactured in 1929 and were used as coolants for electrical equipment in Europe and North America until the 1970's, when studies showed that the compounds had entered the food chain and were harmful to some animals.
The wording of the sentence is such that if we remove past perfect tense from the sentence, it wrongly suggests the co-relation between studies showed and compounds entered into the food chain.
His studies of ice-polished rocks in his Alpine home land, far outside the range of present-day glaciers, led Louis Agassiz in 1837 to propose the concept of an age in which great ice sheets existed in now currently temperate areas.
However, in the above sentence, the wording his studies ...led Louis Agassiz suggests that the studies and the concept of an age are two separate events. Hence, sequencing of events is already clear and does not require past perfect tense.
Am I correct in my understanding ?
It does making sense to me now. However, it can be little tough to find out these differences in timed condition.
Thanks !
14 Sep 2016, 10:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
karant
Dear karant,
I'm happy to respond.
My friend, you are quite correct in your understanding. The way to improve speed is through a habit of reading. See this blog:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score
When you make a habit of reading sophisticated material, extracting the subtle meaning from difficult passages repeatedly, then the GMAT SC won't seem nearly as hard. To get good at words, you have to dive into words.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
